DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
“if use electrical tape to do the job, it needs to peel off part of jacket” paragraph [0002], line 2. This snippet of one sentence has at least two grammatical issues with “use” and “of jacket.” It is also unclear what “it” refers to.
“the splice is hard to be waterproof” paragraph [0002], line 6. “To be waterproof,” does not make sense in the context.
“Although the electrical cable connector is easy to use, but it can’t be waterproof…” paragraph [0003], lines 6-7. The independent clause does not extend smoothly from the dependent clause.
The instant specification appears to be a direct translation of a foreign document. Applicant should review the specification and ensure the instant specification is written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.”
In addition to the requirement for an Information Disclosure Statement consistent with 37 CFR 1.98(b) and MPEP § 609.04(a) discussed above, the reference (US 9147146 B1) cited in paragraph [0003] has not been considered because the “method for producing a card body, and card body,” of the cited reference does not appear to be relevant to the instant “waterproof device for connecting branch wire with main wire” or even the instant discussion of “an electrical cable connector with special structure” found in paragraph [0003].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites:
“the middle” in line 3 which lacks antecedent basis
“the hole” in line 4 which lacks antecedent basis
“the bottom” in line 4 which lacks antecedent basis
“the hexagon screws fit” in line 5 which lacks antecedent basis because only “a hexagon screw” is claimed previously.
For examination purposes, each limitation will be interpreted as,
“a middle”
“a hole”
“a bottom”
“the hexagon screw fits”
Claim 4 recites, “the affecting of rain,” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes it will be interpreted as, “affecting of rain.”
Claim 5 recites, “the operation of connecting,” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes it will be interpreted as, “an operation of connecting.”
Claim 6 recites, “a through hole locates between the opening slot and the branch wire hole,” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what structure the through hole locates in this limitation or how it would perform the task of locating something. For examination purposes it will be interpreted as, “a through hole located between the opening slot and the branch wire hole.”
Claim 7 recites, “the through hole for puncturing main wire and branch wire,” in line 2. The through hole was never recited as capable of puncturing main wire and branch wire and it is unclear how a through hole would be capable of such a task. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as, “the through hole.”
Claim 7 further recites, “the bottom,” “the thickness,” “the diameter of bottom hole,” “the diameter of the top hole.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, each will be interpreted as, “a bottom of the through hole”, “a thickness of the thin wall,” “a bottom diameter of the through hole,” and “a top diameter of the through hole,” respectively.
Claim 7 further recites, “the diameter of bottom hole is about 1mm.” The term “about” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how close to 1mm the diameter should be to meet the degree of “about 1mm.” For examination purposes, “about,” will be interpreted as omitted from the claim.
Claim 8 recites, “the bottom of the top cavity,” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes it will be interpreted as, “a bottom of the top cavity.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US 2497030), Elsaesser (US 8002573 B2), Cote (US 5102347), and Kruzel (US 2019/0148844 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Lewis (Figure 1) teaches a device for connecting branch wire with main wire, comprising a locking screw component (i.e. 8), a housing (i.e. 1) one side of the housing is provided with an opening slot (i.e. left end) for placing the main wire; a branch wire hole (i.e. right end) is also formed on the housing for inserting and installing the branch wire; and when the locking screw component is screwed into the housing component, the conductors of the main wire and branch wire are connected.
but does not specifically teach,
the device is waterproof;
a housing component matched with the locking screw component;
the locking screw component is a puncture locking screw component;
the one side of the housing is provided with two positioning steps for the main wire;
the puncture locking screw component comprises a metal spike, and when the puncture locking screw component is screwed into the housing component, the metal spike pierces through the main wire and the branch wire to connect their conductors.
However, Elsaesser (Figure 1b) teaches a puncture locking screw component (i.e. 8), the puncture locking screw component comprises a metal spike (i.e. 9), and when the puncture locking screw component is screwed into the housing component (i.e. 5), the metal spike pierces through the main wire (i.e. 10) and a busbar (i.e. 1) to connect their conductors.
Because Elsaesser’s puncture locking screw component teaches completely piercing both conductors, it is inherently configured to pierce both conductors of branch and main wire. As Lewis teaches a device for connecting branch and main wire, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the locking screw component taught by Lewis with the puncture locking screw component taught by Elsaesser since this improves mechanical security.
Furthermore, Cote (Figure 4) teaches wherein the device is waterproof (i.e. connection point is sealed within a gel 10) and the one side of the housing (i.e. left side of 1) is provided with two positioning steps (i.e. two steps on left side of 1 supporting 9 from the bottom) for the main wire.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Lewis and Elsaesser to be waterproof via the gel taught by Cote and to be provided with two positioning steps as taught by Cote since it would be obvious to protect the connection by preventing water and the positioning steps help to tension the wire against the screw of the device during insertion.
Lastly, Kruzel (Figure 6) teaches a housing component (i.e. 101, 102, 103).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the waterproof device taught by Lewis, Elaesser, and Cote to have a housing component as taught by Kruzel to provide additional protection from foreign matter.
Regarding claim 2: Lewis, Elsaesser, Cote, and Kruzel teach the waterproof device for connecting branch wire with main wire as claimed in claim 1, Kruzel further teaches wherein the housing component is made of plastic (i.e. as in paragraph [0052]) with a double-station structure (i.e. as in figure 6), and there are two corresponding puncture locking screw components (i.e. Kruzel has two 116).
Claims 3 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis, Elsaesser, Cote, Kruzel, Ruggiero (US 11264736 B2), and Chen (US 2022/0311178 A1).
Regarding claim 3: Lewis, Elsaesser, Cote, and Kruzel teach the waterproof device for connecting branch wire with main wire as claimed in claim 2, Kruzel further teaches wherein the housing is provided with two opening slots (i.e. 129) with a pair of inner threads (i.e. accepting 116) at the middle; the metal spike is made of brass (i.e. see note below).
Note: The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obvious determination In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the metal spike taught by Lewis, Elsaesser, Cote, and Kruzel from brass since it would be obvious to select a material with the desired conductivity and resistance to corrosion. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious. See MPEP 2144.07
Lewis, Elsaesser, Cote, and Kruzel do not specifically teach the puncture locking screw component comprises a hexagon screw is made of plastic, the metal spike is fixed in the hole on the bottom of the hexagon screw,
However, Ruggiero (Figure 1) teaches a puncture locking screw component (i.e. 60) comprises a hexagon screw (i.e. accepting a hex key), and the hexagon screws fit the inner threads (i.e. as in figure 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the puncture locking screw component taught by Lewis, Elsaesser, Cote, and Kruzel to have a hexagon screw as taught by Ruggiero since it would be obvious to select the desired screw type among hex, Phillips, flathead, torx, etc.
Furthermore, Chen (Figure 3) teaches a screw (i.e. 1) is made of plastic (i.e. 1 is plastic) and the metal spike (i.e. 4) is fixed in the hole on the bottom of the screw (i.e. hole of 1 from which 4 protrudes in figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the hexagon screw taught by Lewis, Elsaesser, Cote, and Kruzel to have the screw made of plastic and the metal spike fixed in the hole on the bottom of the screw as taught by Chen. The plastic may be selected over metal for such a device due to its, “structurally sufficient resiliency permitting nonpermanent tension deformation,” as similarly discussed by Hawkins (US 3829825, col. 6 lines 30-36)
Regarding claim 8: Lewis, Elsaesser, Cote, Kruzel, Ruggiero, and Chen teach the waterproof device for connecting branch wire with main wire as claimed in claim 3, wherein the head of the hexagon screw is provided with a top cavity (i.e. Cote 6), the bottom of the top cavity is provided with a plurality of small holes (i.e. Chen’s holes accepting 4), and the bottom of the hexagon screw is provided with a regular hexagonal bottom cavity (i.e. Cote’s modification provides the bottom cavity receiving 10 and Ruggiero’s modification provides a hexagonal shape to the hexagon screw) for installing the metal spike; the puncture locking screw component further comprises a second insulation sealant (i.e. as 10 of Cote is) pre-filled (i.e. while the claim is related to a device and not its method of production, Cote teaches pre-filling the gel as discussed in col. 1 lines 39-41) in the top cavity and a cover plate (i.e. 7 of Cote) to cover the second insulation sealant.
Claims 5-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis, Elsaesser, Cote, Kruzel, and Ruggiero.
Regarding claim 5: Lewis, Elsaesser, Cote, and Kruzel teach the waterproof device for connecting branch wire with main wire as claimed in claim 1, but do not specifically teach wherein a V-type branch wire positioning step is arranged on a bottom surface of a rear section of the branch wire hole to center the branch wire in the operation of connecting.
However, Ruggiero (Figure 9) teaches wherein a V-type branch wire positioning step (i.e. 36) is arranged on a bottom surface of a rear section of the branch wire hole (i.e. 32) to center the branch wire in the operation of connecting.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Lewis, Elsaesser, Cote, and Kruzel to have a V-type branch wire positioning step as taught by Ruggiero to ensure proper positioning of the branch wire within the housing.
Regarding claim 6: Lewis, Elsaesser, Cote, Kruzel, and Ruggiero teach the waterproof device for connecting branch wire with main wire as claimed in claim 5, wherein the branch wire hole (i.e. right side opening 2 of Cote is configured to accept branch wire) is prefilled with a first insulation sealant (i.e. 10 of Cote), and a through hole (i.e. 7 of Elsaesser) locates between the opening slot (i.e. far side of 5 of Elsaesser in figure 2a) and the branch wire hole (i.e. close side of 5 of Elsaesser in figure 2a) for the metal spike to go through.
Regarding claim 7: Lewis, Elsaesser, Cote, Kruzel, and Ruggiero teach the waterproof device for connecting branch wire with main wire as claimed in claim 6, wherein the through hole for puncturing main wire and branch wire has a thin wall (i.e. 15 of Elsaesser) at the bottom, the thickness is 0.2-0.3 mm (i.e. note below), the diameter of bottom hole is about 1mm (i.e. note below), and the diameter of the top hole can be flared to facilitate the metal spike to go through (i.e. if the top hole “can” be flared, the top hole can also not be flared as in Elsaesser figure 1b).
Note: It has been held that, “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40oC and 80oC and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100oC and an acid concentration of 10%.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the thin wall with a thickness of 0.2-0.3mm and a bottom of the through hole with a diameter of 1mm to appropriately accommodate the sizes of the spike, screw, main wire, and branch wire. As the prior art of record teaches spikes, walls, and wires, all of a variety of sizes, it would have been obvious routine optimization to find the desired ranges for a given application.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis, Elsaesser, Cote, Kruzel, Ruggiero, Chen, and Hawkins (US 3829825).
Regarding claim 4: Lewis, Elsaesser, Cote, Kruzel, Ruggiero, and Chen teach the waterproof device for connecting branch wire with main wire as claimed in claim 3, but do not specifically teach wherein two water blocking steps are also formed on two sides of the opening slot of the housing to reduce the affecting of rain.
however, Hawkins (Figures 3-4) teaches two water blocking steps (i.e. 31) are also formed on two sides of the opening slot of the housing to reduce the affecting of rain (i.e. aperture of 31 is configured to receive overflow gel from Cote’s modification, reducing affecting of rain).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Lewis, Elsaesser, Cote, Kruzel, Ruggiero, and Chen to have two water blocking steps formed on two sides of the opening slot of the housing as taught by Hawkins to further protect the device from foreign matter.
Conclusion
Documents not relied on for rejection but considered pertinent are cited below:
Peltier (US 10135157 B2) teaches at least a hexagonal puncture locking screw piercing a cable
Schroeder (US 2534881) teaches a number of piercing arrangements for connecting two wires
Lockwood (US 5828008) teaches a screw piercing two wires
Schreiber (DE 10324569 A) teaches an arrangement for connecting two wires.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY MANGOT whose telephone number is 703-756-5737. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For addition questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREGORY L MANGOT/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834